3 ms·

>the issue isn't so much how safe specific models are, but rather what approaches the manufacturers are using to improve safety. How would anybody possibly be

by natch 6y ago

>the issue isn't so much how safe specific models are, but rather what approaches the manufacturers are using to improve safety. How would anybody possibly be able to characterize Tesla’s approach to improve safety today based on looking only at a test of one car eight years ago? You said it yourself: “improve” — the word implies a measurable delta in the data. But if the data is a static single value, there is no delta to work with. And there’s no rule stating that this is the issue that a blog post must cover. It’s a blog. The author is free to choose and cover any issue they please. It’s just not a worthy issue to make claims about, if your data is so limited that you are (he is) trying to derive manufacturer behavior by looking only at a single car model year as a snapshot in time. It’s simply ridiculous to try to conclude anything from such data. And then to cover that up by presenting the results on twitter as a table that highlights the false conclusion... just dishonest imho.

archi42 6y ago
Selective reading? He acknowledges Tesla to be difficult to fit, right under the "Tier Table": "[...] Tesla not really properly fitting into any category (with their category being the closest fit)". And in the "Bonus: Reputation" section, he supplies an argument/reasoning what he doesn't like about Tesla: [...]I find the Tesla thing interesting since their responses are basically the opposite of what you'd expect from a company that was serious about safety. [...], they often have a very quick response that's basically "everything is fine". I would expect an organization that's serious about safety or improvement to respond with "we're investigating", [...] For example, on the driver-side small overlap test, Tesla had one model with a relevant score and it scored Acceptable (below Good, but above Poor and Marginal) even after modifications were made to improve the score. Tesla disputed the results, saying they make "the safest cars in history" and implying that IIHS should be ignored in favor of NHSTA test scores[...] (end quote). In that context I think it's important not to skip on Tesla and mention the above. And by giving his thoughts this allows readers to make up their own opinion (and you're free to come to your own conclusion). Full disclosure: Safety was one of the main reasons to get a Volvo. However, I am not someone to hate on Tesla.

by natch 6y ago

archi42 6y ago

Selective reading? He acknowledges Tesla to be difficult to fit, right under the "Tier Table": "[...] Tesla not really properly fitting into any category (with their category being the closest fit)". And in the "Bonus: Reputation" section, he supplies an argument/reasoning what he doesn't like about Tesla: [...]I find the Tesla thing interesting since their responses are basically the opposite of what you'd expect from a company that was serious about safety. [...], they often have a very quick response that's basically "everything is fine". I would expect an organization that's serious about safety or improvement to respond with "we're investigating", [...] For example, on the driver-side small overlap test, Tesla had one model with a relevant score and it scored Acceptable (below Good, but above Poor and Marginal) even after modifications were made to improve the score. Tesla disputed the results, saying they make "the safest cars in history" and implying that IIHS should be ignored in favor of NHSTA test scores[...] (end quote). In that context I think it's important not to skip on Tesla and mention the above. And by giving his thoughts this allows readers to make up their own opinion (and you're free to come to your own conclusion). Full disclosure: Safety was one of the main reasons to get a Volvo. However, I am not someone to hate on Tesla.